Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatIsJoppa.com

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.81.58.236 (talk) at 20:09, 5 September 2006 (→[[WhatIsJoppa.com]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WhatIsJoppa.com

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. A google search for "what is joppa" brings forth 37 hits [1]. The only claim of notability in the article is from a newspaper [2]...a newspaper that only distributes 8000 copies as the author of the article even admits [3]. IrishGuy talk 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (BTW - 5,240 hits) From what I recently heard, the Joppa team are to appear in three more articles, in larger distribution periodicals. This is was the only policy based reason as I see it for the article to be deleted, the site now meets the criteria (multiple non trivial published works). - Quolnok 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment can you provide some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals? IrishGuy talk 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - What does "verifiable proof" mean? Does a screenshot of a forum PM from WhatIsJoppa.com#Ben_M._Watts count? The articles are likely to be published within the space of a month (purely based on my estimates) as interviews either have taken place or will be on Friday/today. Also apparently they are to be "Featured Comedian" next wednesday on MySpace's Comedy department. The periodicals in question, now mentioned in the article, have websites and may post the interviews there after publishing. - Quolnok 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable means providing some proof beyond one person stating that this is the case. IrishGuy talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not...but the article provides no other evidence of notability. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The podcast was a top 5 or so on iTunes at one point, a google search for "what is joppa" actually returns 5,300 not 37 hits (are you blind?), and articles about the group have been published or are scheduled to be published as cited by Quolnok. The spirit and criteria of WP:WEB is satisfied in my eyes.; lets focus on real violators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.136.179 (talk)
There aren't 5,000 hits. Some have nothing to do with this [4], others are multiple hits of the same site. The criteria of WP:WEB has not been met until the existence of these articles can be verified. IrishGuy talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37 is clearly a guestimate. By this logic a search for whatisjoppa.com gives 119 which is a better guestimate. - Quolnok 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did you get the number 37 from? Additionally, why are you so hostile? Has Joppa offended you, or possibly a family member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
Additionally, why are you so hostile? Some people are far too literal and vigilant about the rules on Wikipedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, but tell that to people who camp in the recent changes. GreatGatsby 22:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been hostile. I have simply asked for verifiable proof of the claims being made. If those can be provided than this AfD can end shortly thereafter. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply" asking for proof and having an attitude while asking for proof are two different things; you have been hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk)
Actually, I haven't been hostile. I am, however, getting tired of replying to anonymous attack posts. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no more anonymous that the person hiding behind "IrishGuy" as a moniker. You have my IP, you know there are several different people defending the unprovoked and unwarranted hostile provocation, more do you want? Even if you delete the article, it will be posted again because it has enough notoriety to warrant it's inclusion in Wikipedia, despite your onslaught and poor argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Readding a deleted article is considered vandalism. I don't think you should really be bragging about your intentions to vandalize in the future. IrishGuy talk 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call it protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Frankly, it is irrelevant what terminology you choose to use. If the article fails AfD it shouldn't be recreated without going through the proper process. Otherwise it can, and will, be speedy deleted. The person who continually recreates it is subject to being blocked from Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted then wikipedia has jumped the shark and being blocked would not affect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
Of course not. You are just here to publicize Joppa. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That assumption is incorrect. Please do not make assumptions; it's silly. Also, quit editing my posts by adding a signature, I do not want one. Would you like me to edit your signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
I'm adding your signature via the unsigned template so the closing admin can tell who made which comments. If you attempt to alter my signature it will simply be reverted and you run the risk of being blocked for vandalism. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in altering your signature, I was proving point. Please do not add a signature to my posts or I will be forced to report you for vandalism and you may be blocked from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
The guidlines on a notible article are hardly as hard set as you make them seem. Quoted from the Notability guidline section itself; "The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Now, I would understand if Joppa had never been in any sort of media coverage at all. But as long as it holds it's place in a newpaper with a considerable readership, that being 8,000 copies, and not only be mentioned in that paper but put on the front page, it holds its place as "newsworthy," regardless of the level of "newsworthy-ness" it claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
  • comment Since Google seems to be the search engine of choice, let it also be mentioned that if you simply type "Joppa" into the search engine, you will notice that the group is the #1 hit. This says a lot, seeing as Joppa is also a "notable" city in the Bible, as well as a very "notable" nature preserve in Newburyport, as well as a very "notable" city in Maryland (not to mention the name of some other notable companies, all existing long before whatisjoppa.com). So, in a world of Joppas, if the first thing that shows up is whatisjoppa.com, then I would say it's been made somewhat notable. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.157.174 (talk)
An excellent point. GreatGatsby 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first return for an unlikely search doesn't illustrate notability. It just illustrates that not many sites use that word. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I completely disagree. It illustrates that it is the most notable Joppa-related site. It is the first site to come up, out of a total of 2,200,000 sites.--EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A search for the word Joppa results in 2,280,000 hits. I beg to differ with your previous statement. (Also notice that What is Joppa still is first on THAT list.) If you are going to argue that Joppa is an uncommon word, then a Google search shouldn't even be used as a means to signify notability at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
It doesn't quite work that way. Saturday Night Live wasn't a common phrase until the show premiered. As such, that phrase garners many hits...because it is notable. Joppa isn't. Hence it doesn't garner as many hits. IrishGuy talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the words 'Saturday' 'Night' and 'Live' are common words, which could range from "I had a great Saturday" to "Last night was off the hook!" Also, "Saturday Night Live" generates many hits because it's on a notable broadcasting network. A search resulting in "NBC- Saturday Night Live" hardly qualifies as a symbol of notability. I don't quite understand your using this example in the first place, we're not even comparing What is Joppa to the notability level of Saturday Night Live. Saturday Night Live is on TV, Joppa isn't. That's like comparing The Prarie Home Companion to the X-Files. They deal in completely different fields of media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
I said common phrase not common words. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, his point stands and I for one agree the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
What anonymous users believe is largely irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Not really. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
Because Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not simply a place for anonymous users to publicize their websites. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are wrong. It is not my website, and I am not looking for free publicity. In fact, I don't think anyone is looking for publicity, it's a reference page only. We are interested in having a reference page on wikipedia. And why the opposition to anonimity? If the information is correct why does it matter if it comes from an anonymous source or a thinly veiled moniker (IrishGuy), or a fully disclosed individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
There is no way to know if the information is correct without providing verification. The fact that you are proudly anonymous and refuse to sign posts doesn't auger well for your professed honesty. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable connection between anonymity and honesty. anonymous, veiled, and those out in the open can all be honest, dishonest, or somewhere in between. I refuse to sign, because you insist that I sign. Approaching the signatures with some courtesy would go a long way. Had you asked for me to add ~~~~ to the end of my post because you were having a hard time tracking the discussion thread, it would have come off better than trying to bully everyone around. At the very least I would have respected where you were coming from, even if your core argument is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
  • Keep and Comment. A google search isn't the appropriate test for notability in this case. The Whatisjoppa.com is notable for its widespread viewership (~40,000) and its press coverage, which promises (literally) to expand very soon. The podcast was in the top few podcasts on iTunes[5] at the time, and was featured as "New and Notable"[6] (haha) on the front iTunes podcast page. I'd also like to comment that I still don't feel comfortable leaving the article unstubbed. I don't think the stub tag should be removed until the press coverage section is expanded as well as the character section. Additionally, I'd like to point out that this AfD is doomed to fail reaching consensus. Also, as an inclusionist, I'd like to point out that the concept of "notability" is objective and is sourced from a simple essay that is not an official Wikipedia Policy or Guideline. --EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, According to WP:WEB, Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I would consider "New and Notable" an award (hand selected from a notable source). This ends the dispute of notability. --EndlessVince 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New and Notable isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it, since when? "An award is something given to a person or group of people to recognize excellence in a certain field." Quoted from the Award entry on Wikipedia. Thus the position of "New and Notable" is an award, as it was given to recognize a group as something worth looking at. Your previous claim was not only poorly clarified but also illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
It isn't an award. It was a brief mention along with many other sites. That isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather hard to argue on a point if your reply to everything is simply "No it isn't, you are wrong." It was mentioned for a reason. If I made a podcast and put it up on iTunes, it wouldn't automatically recieve "New and Notable." Only sites that deserve to be placed on that standing recieve the standing. That is what qualifies it as a reward; selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
An award is something that is either given to a site or is archived. This was a brief mention. It isn't an award. Please sign your posts. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The position on the "New and Noticable" list was GIVEN to the site because they held a high rank on the top downloads list, even though they were new to the iTunes podcasts section. They ACHIEVED it by recieving a great deal of attention, aka downloads. The term "brief mention" would be iTunes creating something like a "New Posters" list where EVERYONE who was new was shown. An example of a "brief mention" is the "Cool New People" list on Myspace. That is not the case here. My posts are signed as my IP, and will continue to be. There is no significance in me posting a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
I couldn't care less that you don't use a username. Your posts haven't been signed. I have had to go in and add an unsigned template. Please use ~~~~ at the end of your post to sign it. As for the mention, it was listed with many others for a brief period of time. It is no longer up there and nothing was given to Joppa, hence it isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signing your comment is just a suggestion, not a rule (the page says "On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes" and there is no mention of a signing requirement). Though I'm sure you thought it might be possible to have this page also scheduled for deletion based on disobaying the sacred "signing your post" rule. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk)
If you don't start signing them, I will cease to reply to them. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue in your highly uncivil manner. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to forefit, that would make me very happy. In the future, please do not edit my posts by adding a false signature. I have not been uncivil, you may want to read the text of my posts again... carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
I haven't given you a false signature, just your actual one. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You signing for me makes it false. See your signature above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Actually, there is a template for just this sort of thing. It isn't a false signature for me to tag your comments as unsigned. Please stop vandalizing this page. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, not vandalism. It's a silly discussion and this is why you are receiving a silly response, but it's a discussion nonetheless. I for one do not take the crusade to delete the article seriously. It qualifies to stay based on the points raised by others in this discussion. Why you continue to press the issue is beyond me; it's moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
It is vandalism to alter posts and/or signatures in an AfD. If you don't take the AfD seriously, then simply leave. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you continue to alter my intentional blank signature, by vandalizing the site and adding a signature despite my obvious choice not to do so. Please follow your own rules before attacking others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
This has already been answered. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you continue to vandalize the page. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
An award does not have to be material... It was given a position. A position not everybody had. Also, the list is updated. That doesn't mean it was never there. Also, 32 people out of ALL PODCASTS on iTunes is not "many people." In essence, you're now difining an award as "An exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else." So I guess the Oscars aren't an award.~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
Also, just to prove my previous point. There are according to iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/) there are 35,000 podcasts on iTunes. 32 out of 35,000 is less than 0.001% of all podcasts.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
At what point did I say an award is an exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else? I didn't. Please abstain from using strawmen arguments. A constantly updating list of 32 isn't exactly notable. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can complain about strawmen, which I'm not sure is accurate in this case, but it's okay to fabricate numbers, such as the 37 hits for joppa? four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk)
I note that you danced around the fact that you completely made up and argument to rebut. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have no argument to stand on. Notoriety has been established and you have yet to validate the 37 hits you claimed as evidence for the deletion, nor have you updated your argument asking for proof despite the solid notoriety through google argument. There is no dancing on my part; there was no argument rebuilt on your part; if you something substantial to add to the conversation I suggest you do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Provide something verifiable or simply let it go. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It seems that neither party is eager to yield any ground on this issue. Perhaps it would be effective to give the other party some way to prove their point, rather than shooting down the ones already made. Perhaps "Irishguy" could tell the unsigned user above what exactly what proof/evidence it would take to reach consensus on this issue, or perhaps the unsigned could do the same. perilouspenguin talk
I already have. I asked for some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals. As a side note, I find it very curious that there are so many new users who come straight to this AfD with no other edits in their history. IrishGuy talk 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very curious that only one guy seems to want it gone. also:
"If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"
I don't believe proof, as you define it, will exist for about a month and these cases settle within a week usually, so please, answer above question. - Quolnok 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"so many new users" one is many? there are 7 persons who've edited this, 2 are IPs not users and may be the same as one of the other users, one of these has voted (from what I hear such votes don't count and only people with an edit history count) this leaves 4, including 1 (you) against the article. These people probably just looked at the article about (one of) their favourite show(s) and were upset about the pending delete. again: "If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated?" - Quolnok 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an answer to the italicized question, all it takes is one notable publication. Also, I don't find it very curious that there are many new users to comment. However, I'd like to point out I am not one of them. As a response to Quolnok's vote count: Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The point is to come to a consensus about the fate of the article. As there is no consensus, the article will stay. It has been argued that the article in question is in fact notable, and some of those reasons (i.e. the "New and Notable award) are verifiable. The dispute on verifiability is very much based on opinion (such as the definition of "award", which objectively favors the article's survival). --EndlessVince 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your inferrence that these accounts and comments are fake: Just because we don't live and die by the creation, editing, and management of Wikipedia, does not mean we don't use Wikipedia nor does it mean the fans of the actual article don't find the impromptu crucase to delete a worthy page extremely unsettling. The page in question meets Wikipedia's criteria regardless of your need for verifiable proof; the above discussions all refute your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk)
As a general rule, little weight is given to anonymous and new editors in AfDs due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. Hence my bringing it up. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the entrenched dictate deletions and are able to bully their way through the discussion process? Seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia. I may not have the rules to wikipedia on my clipboard ready to be pasted, but give me a break; our opinions should count as users of wikipedia regardless of contributions, edits, and allegiance to the wikipedia nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
You aren't a user. You are someone who appeared simply to stack the vote in your favor. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of wikipedia in the sense that I USE it for reference. I am not a user of wikipedia in the sense that I maintain or create pages. The fact that this USER is unhappy that a valuable reference page will be deleted without warrant makes this USER's vote count. Does that make any sense to you? Without USERS who reference wikipedia, it ceases to exist. You need to take this USER's vote and opinion seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
You are here simply to publicize Joppa as you have admitted above. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I admit it above? Please show me proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
I'm still waiting in anticipation for that proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
One more note on the notability section; Wikipedia: Notability (web) states that "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3.The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." A podcast on iTunes, a VERY well know online broadcaster clearly qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk)
iTunes wouldn't meet those guidelines as the creators put it on iTunes. It was not distributed there independent of the Joppa folks. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clarification because people missinterpreted my comment - I'm aware it isn't a democracy, that was to show a lack of support for the delete. (this may not be targeted at me) I don't believe the editless accounts to be fake, I believe IrishGuy believes that they are. The Italicised question was for IrishGuy, because he seems to think that only when they get printed (ie evidence exists) it would then qualify as notable, thus if the (wiki)article were to be deleted (which I doubt) it could be recreated once said articles exist. - Quolnok 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the case. If this article was deleted due to lack of meeting WP:WEB, if at a later date sources could be provided that do meet WP:WEB, the article could be recreated. AfDs aren't personal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Joppa or the people associated with it. It is strictly dealing with the article and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Currently, the article doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this discussion because I was at the Joppa Wiki and saw the notice, and for no other reason. Before I posted anything on this discussion I wasn't aware that it would merit such a large response. I also did not know that the AfD was inteded as a discussion between registered members only, so I proceeded to comment, without hesitation, my reasons to keep the Joppa Wiki alive. At the very beginning I proceeded to read all the guidelines and formalities, as that's the only way one can win an argument, when one knows all the information. Now I realize you may think I'm more than one person, and I can't create any assurance as to wether or not I am, except for my word. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.72.81.58.236
No, no, it is okay for non members to discuss this stuff, it is an open discussion. - Quolnok 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be the new user everyone's talking about, and yes I could see how I might seem to be a sock puppet, this being really my first edit. But I would say that I've been the victim of circumstance...my comment above you may notice wasn't really vying for either side, I was simply attempting to help this issue move along; thus I don't really see how that kind of a comment would come from a sock puppet...I guess if sock puppets are helping to move discussions towards a compromise and resolution, then maybe more people should use them. But anyway, I was simply browsing articles of things I have knowledge about, looking for a good place to edit or create when I found that the joppa wiki was up for AfD, and decided to jump in. I know this gives no grounds for me either being or not being a sock puppet, I just thought the story should be told. perilouspenguin talk
Actually, no people shouldn't use sockpuppets. It is clear that most, if not all, of you came from this forum post. IrishGuy talk 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that post alerted us to the desire to delete this page, why should that taint our opinon? With or without the alert, the article meets the criteria and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk)
Simply repeatedly saying doesn't make it true. You haven't provided any verifiable evidence of notability. IrishGuy talk 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've put forward different types of evidence we thought would prove it. We haven't just been sitting here and saying "Joppa is notable" one after another. We've been trying to make a case.72.81.58.236
When I point out in WP:WEB that what you provide doesn't fit the criteria, you simply insist that it does. Thus far, you have just been parroting the same line again and again. I get it. You want Joppa to have an entry. Unfortunately, you don't meet the criteria of WP:WEB unless you can provide some verifiable sources which fit the perameters given. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I insist because I have to make sure that there is no way something I find might fit. It's simple debate procedure. Argument and counter-argument. True, sometimes a point is over-streached by other members of the discussion, but I think that saying we've just keep saying Joppa is notible over and over again is not true. Sorry, but I feel that that comment was not correct. 72.81.58.236
You aren't debating. You are creating things. The criteria for meeting WP:WEB isn't up for debate. You meet it or you don't. Thus far, you don't. IrishGuy talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? WP:WEB in statest; "This page gives some ROUGH guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use." A GUIDELINE's application toward something is very much up to debate. If it wasn't we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss the deletion process. We have two credible newspapers. You're stating that what we have isn't enough. I consider that a debate. The guidelines, once again, don't state the amount of media coverage a website needs to recieve, just that it needs to appear in multiple publications. Which it has.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It expressely states non trivial media. There is a world of difference between national media and local media. You have a local newspaper. That just isn't enough. IrishGuy talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is Ben from the group Joppa. I'm really impressed with the dedication that our fans have put in to keeping this Wiki page alive, so thanks to all who have contributed. If I may address IrishGuy, I just wanted to confirm to you that we had an interview with the Newburyport Daily News (14,000 home deliveries daily) this past Friday, and the article will run a week from tomorrow, we just need to meet with the staff photographer. It seems to me that the paper posts all of it's articles online, but if such is not the case, how would I go about getting that proof to you? Additionally, would this end the debate as to whether or not the group had acheived Noteworthy status? Of course, we see the importance of adhering to Wiki guidelines, but two newspaper articles seems to be more than what the guidelines require, regardless of their locale or subscription size. Our fans have spent a lot of time and effort putting this page together, and I'd hate to see that effort go to waste. Thank you. 72.71.226.92 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ben. The criteria for inclusion on WP:WEB states: This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Under that heading, the footnote gives examples such as The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired. I'm afraid that two local papers probably don't fit WP:WEB. As for the iTunes argument, WP:WEB states: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster the fact that the group itself put the downloads up on iTunes makes it difficult to argue that it is completely independent of Joppa. This isn't personal. It isn't an attack on your group or your site. Please don't take it that way. There are hundreds of AfDs every day. Some pass, others don't. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so twenty thousand people seeing it in print and forty thousand people seeing it online isn't enough. Makes sense. GreatGatsby 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And these numbers come from where? IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are presumably from the advertising page. If you go down about 2/3rd of the way you will find that it says;

"What is your circulation?

14,000-plus homes. With more than two readers per household, that translates into about 28,000 readers on any given day." 72.81.58.236 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add the link, here it is; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm 72.81.58.236 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...? IrishGuy talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking us like we made this up? This is their statistics. I assume they did the proper research before making the previous satement. I was in fact quoting someone else. If you do not believe statements other companies make, then direct your questions at them.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" Are you serious? No really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
Yes I am serious. Claims of notability must be verifiable. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" That sentence has nothing to do with verifying notability, it's nitpicking and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
It is asking for verification. Anyone can make a claim. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then read the evidence offered, rather than spout nonsense about seeing proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up. IrishGuy talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did. Let me just show it to you again, in case you missed it, 3 sentences above this post; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm I'm sure you won't find it too hard to scroll down and read the section I had quoted.72.81.58.236 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am referring to when I ask "are you serious?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
Census? Average household population minus something? a few posibilities. - Quolnok 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see why this discussion must continue. All evidence for notability has been presented and verified. The nominator for deletion disagrees on the importance of the evidence, but all other editors, such as myself and Quolnok, agree that the subject meets notability criteria and should remain. Unless there's something new to add, which I don't foresee, need any more be said?--EndlessVince 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you and Quolnok helped create the article as well as are active on their forums, the fact that you find trivial local papers to be enough criteria isn't surprising. Nor does it carry any extra weight. IrishGuy talk 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the only person who has a problem with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk)
If he is right, there should be someone around who will agree with him. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is The Boston Globe also a local paper? Granted I don't know if that article printed yet but I don't know how "local paper" is defined. Does the paper need to be in a whole state? ...whole country? ...whole planet? ...somewhere in between? I'm guessing there only needs to be one nonlocal paper to accompany the local ones. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe is eminently notable. The problem is you have yet to show verifiable evidence that they will appear in the paper. IrishGuy talk 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

IrishGuy is mistaken in regards to WP:WEB requirements. Perhaps you read the title of the page without delving into the main body. Their site clearly meets one of the single necessary guidelines required on WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Please re-read this if you haven't already. The guideline, while called a "notability guideline," does not actually state that the site has to be the subject of multiple NOTABLE published works. They need merely be NON-TRIVIAL published works.

A 'zine that someone photocopies in CVS and passes out at punk shows is arguably trivial. A weekly publication like The Wire (which has a sizeable readership in urban areas like Portsmouth, NH as well as other locations in MA)is certainly not trivial by any definition of the word. To suggest that the Newburyport News is somehow trival is actually laughable; the paper is owned by the Eagle-Tribune Newspaper Company, a major area publishing group, and has a wider circulation than the second Newburyport paper (that's right, there are two of them) which is owned by the Herald Media group, often associated with the Boston Herald. You said above: "It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up." You were provided with a link that within all reasonabilty proves the circulation of the paper, and your response was to change tack and ignore the link. Is it possible that you're just trying to be difficult here?

Please also review the bulleted portion of the Notability requirements reading: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles." Reliability is actually the issue here, not notability in terms of readership. And according to the wording of this requirement, all a published work has to do to be reliable is to be a newspaper or magazine article! It doesn't matter what the circulation is, so long as the published work is a newspaper or a magazine. Again, you need to actually read these requirements. The wire has been sufficiently proven to be a reliable paper and the Newburyport News again fulfills the requirement; all they have to do to be reliable, according to WP:WEB, is to exist as magazine or newspaper publications (as opposed to zines, agitskis, or other "unreliable" published media).

Your objection only holds any water at all until the Newburyport News article runs next week because until that point only one non-trivial publication has covered Joppa.com. After that, there is absolutely no reason to object to the Joppa wikipedia entry, as it will clearly and without room for argument fulfill the guideline that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," unless YOU want to get in touch with the Newburyport News and question them as to the veracity of their claims regarding readership, or get in touch with the Wire to find out whether they're actually just a joppa front organization.

To conclude: once the Joppa wiki article links to the wire AND the Newburyport News, you would be well served to drop the issue. This is only one man's opinion, but the requirements guidelines don't really leave you a lot of wiggle room.

I am not a regular viewer of Joppa and I am not closely aquainted with the makers of the show. You can choose to make my identity a sticking point, but the validity of my argument is intact. 151.199.18.140 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)SomeonefromNS[reply]

Non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous. When a local paper only has a local readership, it isn't grounds to illustrate notability. This is a generally encyclopedia. It is about far more than a small area of New England. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. You were skirting the line quite a few times in that post. IrishGuy talk 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I've on several occassions heard you use a "judgemental tone" as well. Also, please add some basis to your statement. By saying that non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous, I would like to see some evidence of that satement, may it be previously decided cases made by other editors, (not yourself as we already know your opinion,) a dictionary definition, or a general article which makes that claim. Otherwise your argument hardly holds any water. Also, I would like to note that Wikipedia is trying to create, in essense an encyclopedia of all knowledge, regardless of its notability in certain areas. Were this a general encyclopedia, many of the articles you and others have posted would not fall under "general." Simply because a topic is more notable in one area than another does not mean it isn't notible at all. Your article about "Keith Barry" is a perfect example, as people in Europe would find it MUCH more notable than anyone in America or other parts of the world. This is simply my point of view in this matter, please consider it. 72.81.58.236 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-trivial" and "non-notable" are hardly synonymous. I thougt wikipedia was a place for defining things. Maybe those two terms should be defined here to clear up the confusion. Or, maybe those terms are, in themselves, not notable enough for this site...don't know. By the way, this is Thom of the group Joppa, and just wanted to see how the discussion was going, but couldn't help but react to such an etymological mistake.

And, just to add something here: it does appear that IrishGuy has a some point to make about notability, and is not really making it. A number of people here have quoted the guidelines of this site pretty clearly, and proved in favor of keeping the article. I, personally, feel that you are much mistaken in believing this is a means to "promote" our group. Hardly. Sorry, but more folks will be hearing about us in the Newburyport News, The Wire, on iTunes, and next week as a featured comedian on MySpace, then will ever come to us through this article. So, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if this were deleted. However, I would be upset that so much of the hard work these fans have put in to make this a perfect reference for people visiting our site would be wasted--because, it DOES NOT violate any guidelines of wikipedia, as have been proved more times here than I need to prove again.

Wikipedia is a great place for references. And, that's what this article is all about. It's a reference for the viewship of Joppa to better understand the people and places involved with the show. Let me end by a quote from wikipedia's guidelines: "Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community...A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." 24.61.157.174 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other anonymous posters continue to assert that you have met WP:WEB...and yet you haven't. Local newspapers do not notability make. While claims have been made that interviews have taken place with larger notable papers, no verifiable evidence has been presented to validate these claims. IrishGuy talk 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then the entire quotation he presented to you is void? Just wondering. 72.81.58.236 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WhatIsJoppa.com&oldid=74008192"